Will the real Mike Mearls please stand up?

[am181d]

And I definitely don't want another edition where they release it before they're done developing it, and then release 5.5 or Dungeons & Dragons Next Essentials 2 or 3 years later.

Does it really seem to you like they're rushing???

You may want to take a step back and consider your opinions. It seems like you're grasping to interpret everything in front of you in the most negative way possible.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's possible that after going to the extreme other end of the field in having such an instrumental role in the creation of 4th Edition, he realized the error of his ways.

As mentioned upthread, he didn't.

 

[nnms]

Particularly when he talks about his past experience with D&D. Or when he says things like "it's my opinion that D&D is at its best when the DM is making rulings not rules." I mean -- this is literally the exact opposite of what you used to say. What does this actually mean to you? Are these just buzz words?

They are just buzz words. The articles are marketing material first and foremost. The one where he talks about rulings not rules is an attempt to appeal to the people who like that Primer on Old School Gaming that has been going around the various discussion forums.

I don't care enough to put in the extra effort to separate spin from genuine personal opinion. If I have to do that then I'm just going to tune out their blogs and articles and just wait for the final product.

I think this whole playtest process is just spin and marketing. I highly doubt that any substantial change or development will occur because of feedback. I think the most that will happen will be tiny tweaks and the use of some of the more commonly suggested alternatives as modules.

So at this point, I'm not even waiting for the finished product (as I think it will be close to what we see now). I'm waiting for a sign of actual engagement with the playtest audience and the arrival of real rules modules that are designed to produce play like the various editions that have already been published (that stuff they hyped between the announcement of 5E and the arrival of the playtest packet).

But I don't think that's going to happen when the lead on the project thinks the best play happens when the DM must set the rules aside and go with a ruling. Why make rules to produce specific types of play if you think the way to go is to make everything ultimately about DM fiat?

 

[darjr]

I think the playtest itself shows that somebody at wotc listened and took some of that feedback to jeart

 

[Campbell]

A Few Things

• Mike Mearls certainly didn't coin "Mother may I?" in the context of talking about RPGs. It was a common theme amongst fans of rules heavy RPGs during the 2e era in their indictment against AD&D.
• The blog in question is largely about miniature free play of 3e. 3e has a number of rules elements that are heavily dependent on positioning in a way that AD&D and D&D Next do not. Part of the assumed social contract of rules heavy games is that players can count on the rules of the game.
• Opinions can change alot in 7 years. I am a completely different person than I was 7 years ago. Back then I wouldn't have touched AD&D with a ten foot pole. Now I play in a biweekly 2e game.

 

[pemerton]

I hadn't seen that essay before. I think Mearls is right about the similarity (in certain respects) between modern D&D and indie-RPGs. I think 4e pushed further in this direction of similarity than 3E, stripping out those elements of 3E (eg duration-tracking outside the context of the encounter, and semi-free-form non-combat resolution) that maintained "mother may I" dynamics.

I think that "mother may I" and "rulings not rules" don't have to be the same thing, but agree with [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] that they can converge.

In 4e, choosing a damage range for an improvised action from the page 42 tables is a ruling and not a rule. But the game and the GM guidelines are expressly designed to avoid "mother may I" issues and uphold the players' power over the game.

My worry about the playtest rules is that they don't even hint at a structure within which rulings will be made, and suggest GM-controlled more-or-less freeform resolution for non-combat encounters.

 

[Piratecat]

I think this whole playtest process is just spin and marketing. I highly doubt that any substantial change or development will occur because of feedback. I think the most that will happen will be tiny tweaks and the use of some of the more commonly suggested alternatives as modules.

As someone slightly on the inside - I was in the Family & Friends playtest, I was in the pre-Family & Friends playtest, and I'm doing a bit of consulting for WotC on D&DN - I am confident that you're mistaken. I'm already seen massive changes occurring as a result of playtest data. That said, there's no reason for you to necessarily believe me. You may be best off waiting to see if you think the final game is fun.

 

[Dire Bare]

He's also the guy who designed elaborate, skill-based stunt systems for Iron Heroes and Book of Iron Might; then a couple years later said that you should ditch all untrained skills and just use ability checks; then designed 4E; and is now back to the ability check thing.

Mearls is a flip-flopping cipher.

Well, I'm not voting for Mearls in November then!

 

[nnms]

As someone slightly on the inside - I was in the Family & Friends playtest, I was in the pre-Family & Friends playtest, and I'm doing a bit of consulting for WotC on D&DN - I am confident that you're mistaken. I'm already seen massive changes occurring as a result of playtest data. That said, there's no reason for you to necessarily believe me. You may be best off waiting to see if you think the final game is fun.

I'm a bit surprised to hear it, but I do believe you.

It's good to know feedback is being taken into account.

I think the core could have been sufficiently tested before this public test so they could have lead with the much hyped "appeal to all editions" modularity.

I need to see real evidence that the designers are thinking about different play styles from different editions and how to support them beyond just saying "drop backgrounds and feats for a more old school experience" and tweets about hit points and their recovery.

 

[Mallus]

The articles are marketing material first and foremost.

The are certainly marketing... however, that doesn't prevent them from containing some truth.

Why make rules to produce specific types of play if you think the way to go is to make everything ultimately about DM fiat?

That's a little like asking, "Why make a role-playing game?".

(at least a traditional one)